The State v Mann case was a landmark in the state of North Carolina. The defendant John Mann was a slave owner who was on trial for shooting and injuring Lydia who was rented slave. Lydia was the victim who was rented to John Mann from Elizabeth Jones for a designated period of time.
The arguments in favor of John Mann revolved around Lydia being a disobedient individual. The first argument that I noticed was from a Christian perspective where someone argued that resisting authority resists God. God has placed masters over slaves was the paradigm. The actions of Lydia to run away were seen as untrustworthy. The same argument also went on to say that John Mann showed restraint, with the use of only one bullet. The arguments to aid John Mann revolved around his power as a slave owner over Lydia. The second argument to aid John Mann that was interesting was from the economic standpoint of John Mann being a poor slave owner who had to rent Lydia, instead of buying her outright. The argument states that John’s fine of ten dollars is worth more than Lydia as a slave, that claim is false, but it was used in favor of John Mann.
The arguments against John Mann were centered around Lydia being damaged property. The best argument someone made against Mann was that the charges of assault and battery should remain. The charges should remain because Lydia was never sold to him. Lydia never being sold to John shows that she was never his property. He never had a right to his actions, and firing a shot at her is battery and assault. Elizabeth Jones was the rightful owner of Lydia, and John had no right to proceed as he did. John Mann broke the agreement of property law, when he shot Lydia by causing bodily harm, or property damage per this time in history. It is argued that he harmed property that was not his. Mann’s actions are a crime and he injured temporary or rented property. John broke the law by breaking property law.
Sources
No comments:
Post a Comment